Top

Published in:

01-03-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Review

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

Authors: Arnaldo Stanzione, Francesca Boccadifuoco, Renato Cuocolo, Valeria Romeo, Pier Paolo Mainenti, Arturo Brunetti, Simone Maurea

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 3/2021

Abstract

In the management of several abdominal disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to significantly improve patient’s outcome due to its diagnostic accuracy leading to more appropriate treatment choice. However, its clinical value heavily relies on the quality and quantity of diagnostic information that radiologists manage to convey through their reports. To solve issues such as ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness that can occur with conventional narrative reports, the adoption of structured reporting has been proposed. Using a checklist and standardized lexicon, structured reports are designed to increase clarity while assuring that all key imaging findings related to a specific disorder are included. Unfortunately, structured reports have their limitations too, such as risk of undue report simplification and poor template plasticity. Their adoption is also far from widespread, and probably the ideal balance between radiologist autonomy and report consistency of has yet to be found. In this article, we aimed to provide an overview of structured reporting proposals for abdominal MRI and of works assessing its value in comparison to conventional free-text reporting. While for several abdominal disorders there are structured templates that have been endorsed by scientific societies and their adoption might be beneficial, stronger evidence confirming their imperativeness and added value in terms of clinical practice is needed, especially regarding the improvement of patient outcome.

Panicek DM, Hricak H (2019) Recommendations for the Initial Cancer Staging MRI Report. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1209–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26528CrossRefPubMed

Alper DP, Shinagare AB, Hashemi SR, et al (2020) Effect of a Report Template–Enabled Quality Improvement Initiative on Use of Preferred Phrases for Communicating Normal Findings in Structured Abdominal CT and MRI Reports. Am J Roentgenol 214:835–842. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21735CrossRef

(2018) ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 9:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0588-8

Ganeshan D, Duong P-AT, Probyn L, et al (2018) Structured Reporting in Radiology. Acad Radiol 25:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.08.005CrossRefPubMed

Langlotz C (2015) The Radiology Report: A Guide to Thoughtful Communication for Radiologists and Other Medical Professionals.

Sala E, Freeman S (2018) Structured reporting of pelvic MRI leads to better treatment planning of uterine leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 28:3007–3008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5417-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports. J Digit Imaging 27:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9699-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured Reporting: Patient Care Enhancement or Productivity Nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080988CrossRefPubMed

Nobel JM, Kok EM, Robben SGF (2020) Redefining the structure of structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 11:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0831-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Herts BR, Gandhi NS, Schneider E, et al (2019) How We Do It: Creating Consistent Structure and Content in Abdominal Radiology Report Templates. Am J Roentgenol 212:490–496. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20368CrossRef

11.

Galle PR, Forner A, Llovet JM, et al (2018) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019CrossRef

12.

Shah A, Tang A, Santillan C, Sirlin C (2016) Cirrhotic liver: What’s that nodule? The LI-RADS approach. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24937CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lee S, Kim M-J, Kim S, et al (2020) Retrospective comparison of EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Hepatol Int 14:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-019-10002-3CrossRefPubMed

14.

Imbriaco M, De Luca S, Coppola M, et al (2017) Diagnostic Accuracy of Gd-EOB-DTPA for Detection Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): A Comparative Study with Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CT). Polish J Radiol 82:50–57. https://doi.org/10.12659/PJR.899239CrossRef

15.

Reporting and Data Systems, America College of Radiology. www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/. Accessed 26 Aug 2020

16.

Petruzzi N, Mitchell D, Guglielmo F, et al (2013) Hepatocellular Carcinoma Likelihood on MRI Exams. Acad Radiol 20:694–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.01.016CrossRefPubMed

17.

Flusberg M, Ganeles J, Ekinci T, et al (2017) Impact of a Structured Report Template on the Quality of CT and MRI Reports for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1206–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.050CrossRefPubMed

18.

Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, et al (2004) The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer 100:738–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20025CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lopes Vendrami C, Parada Villavicencio C, DeJulio TJ, et al (2017) Differentiation of Solid Renal Tumors with Multiparametric MR Imaging. RadioGraphics 37:2026–2042. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170039CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sasaguri K, Takahashi N (2018) CT and MR imaging for solid renal mass characterization. Eur J Radiol 99:40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.008CrossRefPubMed

21.

Baldari D, Capece S, Mainenti PP, et al (2015) Comparison between computed tomography multislice and high-field magnetic resonance in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with renal masses. Quant Imaging Med Surg 5:691–9. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.07.03CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Davenport MS, Hu EM, Smith AD, et al (2017) Reporting standards for the imaging-based diagnosis of renal masses on CT and MRI: a national survey of academic abdominal radiologists and urologists. Abdom Radiol 42:1229–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0962-xCrossRef

23.

Alsaikhan N, Alshehri W, Cassidy F, et al (2019) Renal tumor structured reporting including nephrometry score and beyond: what the urologist and interventional radiologist need to know. Abdom Radiol 44:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1691-0CrossRef

24.

Hu EM, Zhang A, Silverman SG, et al (2018) Multi-institutional analysis of CT and MRI reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements. Abdom Radiol 43:3493–3502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1609-xCrossRef

25.

Davenport MS, Hu EM, Zhang A, et al (2019) Standardized report template for indeterminate renal masses at CT and MRI: a collaborative product of the SAR Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma. Abdom Radiol 44:1423–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1851-2CrossRef

26.

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al (2018) MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993CrossRefPubMed

27.

Quentin M, Blondin D, Klasen J, et al (2012) Evaluation of a Structured Report of Functional Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Suspicion for Prostate Cancer or under Active Surveillance. Urol Int 89:25–29. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338808CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wetterauer C, Winkel DJ, Federer-Gsponer JR, et al (2019) Structured reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to improve interdisciplinary communication. PLoS One 14:e0212444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Magnetta MJ, Donovan AL, Jacobs BL, et al (2018) Evidence-Based Reporting: A Method to Optimize Prostate MRI Communications With Referring Physicians. Am J Roentgenol 210:108–112. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18260CrossRef

30.

Shaish H, Feltus W, Steinman J, et al (2018) Impact of a Structured Reporting Template on Adherence to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 and on the Diagnostic Performance of Prostate MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 15:749–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.034CrossRefPubMed

31.

Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, et al (2018) A Comparison of Radiologists’ and Urologists’ Opinions Regarding Prostate MRI Reporting: Results From a Survey of Specialty Societies. Am J Roentgenol 210:101–107. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241CrossRef

32.

Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Sosa R, et al (2014) Value of a Standardized Lexicon for Reporting Levels of Diagnostic Certainty in Prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol 203:W651–W657. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12654CrossRef

33.

Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Harmon S, et al (2019) A Grading System for the Assessment of Risk of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer at Multiparametric MRI. Radiology 290:709–719. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181278CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kamat AM, Hahn NM, Efstathiou JA, et al (2016) Bladder cancer. Lancet 388:2796–2810. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30512-8CrossRefPubMed

35.

Panebianco V, Narumi Y, Altun E, et al (2018) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Bladder Cancer: Development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur Urol 74:294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Barchetti G, Simone G, Ceravolo I, et al (2019) Multiparametric MRI of the bladder: inter-observer agreement and accuracy with the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) at a single reference center. Eur Radiol 29:5498–5506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06117-8CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wang H, Luo C, Zhang F, et al (2019) Multiparametric MRI for Bladder Cancer: Validation of VI-RADS for the Detection of Detrusor Muscle Invasion. Radiology 291:668–674. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182506CrossRefPubMed

38.

Luo C, Huang B, Wu Y, et al (2020) Use of Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) for detecting the muscle invasion of bladder cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:4606–4614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06802-zCrossRefPubMed

39.

Del Giudice F, Barchetti G, De Berardinis E, et al (2020) Prospective Assessment of Vesical Imaging Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) and Its Clinical Impact on the Management of High-risk Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Patients Candidate for Repeated Transurethral Resection. Eur Urol 77:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.029CrossRefPubMed

40.

Glanc P, Benacerraf B, Bourne T, et al (2017) First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations. J Ultrasound Med 36:849–863. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14197CrossRefPubMed

41.

Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM, et al (2017) ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. Eur Radiol 27:2248–2257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4600-3CrossRefPubMed

42.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al (2013) Adnexal Masses: Development and Preliminary Validation of an MR Imaging Scoring System. Radiology 267:432–443. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121161CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ruiz M, Labauge P, Louboutin A, et al (2016) External validation of the MR imaging scoring system for the management of adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 205:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.493CrossRefPubMed

44.

Sasaguri K, Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, et al (2019) External validation of ADNEX MR SCORING system: a single-centre retrospective study. Clin Radiol 74:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.014CrossRefPubMed

45.

Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, et al (2018) Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagnostic Interv Radiol. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2018.17378CrossRef

46.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al (2020) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1919896. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Luomaranta A, Leminen A, Loukovaara M (2015) Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of High-Risk Features of Endometrial Carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25:837–842. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000194CrossRefPubMed

48.

Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, et al (2019) Endometrial Cancer MRI staging: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 29:792–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5515-yCrossRefPubMed

49.

Liu Y, Feng Z, Qin S, et al (2019) Structured reports of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in primary endometrial cancer: Potential benefits for clinical decision-making. PLoS One 14:e0213928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Montoliu-Fornas G, Martí-Bonmatí L (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging structured reporting in infertility. Fertil Steril 105:1421–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.005CrossRefPubMed

51.

Bharwani N, Tirlapur SA, Balogun M, et al (2016) MRI reporting standard for chronic pelvic pain: consensus development. Br J Radiol 89:20140615. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140615CrossRefPubMed

52.

Maciel C, Bharwani N, Kubik-Huch RA, et al (2020) MRI of female genital tract congenital anomalies: European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06750-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Feldman MK, VanBuren WM, Barnard H, et al (2020) Systematic interpretation and structured reporting for pelvic magnetic resonance imaging studies in patients with endometriosis: value added for improved patient care. Abdom Radiol 45:1608–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02182-1CrossRef

54.

Mattos LA, Goncalves MO, Andres MP, et al (2019) Structured Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reports for Patients with Suspected Endometriosis: Guide for Imagers and Clinicians. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26:1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.017CrossRefPubMed

55.

Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, et al (2017) European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 27:2765–2775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4673-zCrossRefPubMed

56.

Jaramillo-Cardoso A, Shenoy-Bhangle A, Garces-Descovich A, et al (2020) Pelvic MRI in the diagnosis and staging of pelvic endometriosis: added value of structured reporting and expertise. Abdom Radiol 45:1623–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02199-6CrossRef

57.

Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B, et al (2018) Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. Eur Radiol 28:3009–3017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5161-9CrossRefPubMed

58.

Jhaveri KS, Hosseini-Nik H (2015) MRI of Rectal Cancer: An Overview and Update on Recent Advances. Am J Roentgenol 205:W42–W55. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14201CrossRef

59.

Horvat N, Carlos Tavares Rocha C, Clemente Oliveira B, et al (2019) MRI of Rectal Cancer: Tumor Staging, Imaging Techniques, and Management. RadioGraphics 39:367–387. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180114CrossRefPubMed

60.

Taylor FGM, Swift RI, Blomqvist L, Brown G (2008) A Systematic Approach to the Interpretation of Preoperative Staging MRI for Rectal Cancer. Am J Roentgenol 191:1827–1835. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1004CrossRef

61.

Taylor F (2010) Proforma-based reporting in rectal cancer. Cancer Imaging 10:S142–S150. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2010.9092CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Kennedy ED, Milot L, Fruitman M, et al (2014) Development and Implementation of a Synoptic MRI Report for Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer on a Population-Based Level. Dis Colon Rectum 57:700–708. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000123CrossRefPubMed

63.

(2017) Essential Items for Structured Reporting of Rectal Cancer MRI: 2016 Consensus Recommendation from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 18:132. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.1.132

64.

Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M, et al (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 28:1465–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2CrossRefPubMed

65.

Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a Structured Report Template on the Quality of MRI Reports for Rectal Cancer Staging. Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14053CrossRef

66.

Tersteeg JJC, Gobardhan PD, Crolla RMPH, et al (2018) Improving the Quality of MRI Reports of Preoperative Patients With Rectal Cancer: Effect of National Guidelines and Structured Reporting. Am J Roentgenol 210:1240–1244. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19054CrossRef

67.

Nörenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, et al (2017) Structured Reporting of Rectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Suspected Primary Rectal Cancer. Invest Radiol 52:232–239. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000336CrossRefPubMed

68.

Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel J-F, Peyrin-Biroulet L (2017) Crohn’s disease. Lancet 389:1741–1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31711-1CrossRefPubMed

69.

Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Davis JT, et al (2017) Structured Reporting of Magnetic Resonance Enterography for Pediatric Crohn’s Disease: Effect on Key Feature Reporting and Subjective Assessment of Disease by Referring Physicians. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:110–114. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.12.001CrossRefPubMed

70.

Bruining DH, Zimmermann EM, Loftus E V., et al (2018) Consensus Recommendations for Evaluation, Interpretation, and Utilization of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Patients With Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease. Gastroenterology 154:1172–1194. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.11.274CrossRefPubMed

71.

Baker ME, Hara AK, Platt JF, et al (2015) CT enterography for Crohn’s disease: optimal technique and imaging issues. Abdom Imaging 40:938–952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0357-4CrossRefPubMed

72.

Rees MA, Dillman JR, Anton CG, et al (2019) Inter-radiologist agreement using Society of Abdominal Radiology-American Gastroenterological Association (SAR-AGA) consensus nomenclature for reporting CT and MR enterography in children and young adults with small bowel Crohn disease. Abdom Radiol 44:391–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1743-5CrossRef

73.

Tolan DJM (2016) Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Perianal Fistula. Semin Ultrasound, CT MRI 37:313–322. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2016.04.004CrossRef

74.

Thipphavong S, Costa AF, Ali HA, et al (2019) Structured reporting of MRI for perianal fistula. Abdom Radiol 44:1295–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1839-yCrossRef

75.

Ho E, Rickard MJFX, Suen M, et al (2019) Perianal sepsis: surgical perspective and practical MRI reporting for radiologists. Abdom Radiol 44:1744–1755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01920-9CrossRef

76.

Tuncyurek O, Garces-Descovich A, Jaramillo-Cardoso A, et al (2019) Structured versus narrative reporting of pelvic MRI in perianal fistulizing disease: impact on clarity, completeness, and surgical planning. Abdom Radiol 44:811–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1858-8CrossRef

77.

Rao VM, Levin DC (2011) The Value-Added Services of Hospital-Based Radiology Groups. J Am Coll Radiol 8:626–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.03.007CrossRefPubMed

78.

Powell DK, Silberzweig JE (2015) State of Structured Reporting in Radiology, a Survey. Acad Radiol 22:226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.014CrossRefPubMed

79.

Faggioni L, Coppola F, Ferrari R, et al (2017) Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey. Eur Radiol 27:1934–1943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4553-6CrossRefPubMed

80.

Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF (2013) Improving Consistency in Radiology Reporting through the Use of Department-wide Standardized Structured Reporting. Radiology 267:240–250. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121502CrossRefPubMed

81.

Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, et al (2020) Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol 49:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03465-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, et al (2016) The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev 42:56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007CrossRefPubMed

Title: State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review
Authors: Arnaldo Stanzione
Francesca Boccadifuoco
Renato Cuocolo
Valeria Romeo
Pier Paolo Mainenti
Arturo Brunetti
Simone Maurea
Publication date: 01-03-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRI of the Abdomen
Published in: Abdominal Radiology / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02744-8

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits

Illustration of figure on mountain summit/© Orapun / Stock.adobe.com, STEP AAG HeroTeaserCollection image/© Tarek / Generated with AI / Stock.adobe.com, ACC 2024 Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Pulmonary Vascular Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Valvular Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 HF and Cardiomyopathies: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, Woman out walking/© Seventyfour / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Woman checking smartwatch /© saltdium / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Cardiac catheterization/© Damian / stock.adobe.com

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Diagnostic approach to primary retroperitoneal pathologies: what the radiologist needs to know

Comparing outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy drain placement between patients within and outside of Tokyo guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis

Improving the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging

Unenhanced MRI of the abdomen and pelvis for surveillance of patients with stage 1 testicular cancer post-radical orchiectomy

High-resolution MRI-based radiomics analysis to predict lymph node metastasis and tumor deposits respectively in rectal cancer

Automatic semantic segmentation of kidney cysts in MR images of patients affected by autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage